Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Association for Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India and Anr. has held that “The mere suspicion that there may be a mismatch in votes cast through EVMs, thereby giving rise to a demand for a 100% VVPAT slips verification, is not a sufficient ground for the present set of writ petitions to be considered maintainable”.

What was the Background of Maya Gopinathan v. Anoop S.B. Case?

• This case relates to petitions challenging the use of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) in elections in India.
• The petitioners do not allege any motive or malice on part of the Election Commission of India (ECI) or claim that the EVMs have been rigged to favor any candidate or party.
  • However, they argued that due to the possibility of manipulating EVMs, there is suspicion and lack of confidence among voters.
• The petitioners alternatively argued for
  • returning to the paper ballot system,
  • allowing voters to verify and deposit the printed Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) slip in a ballot box for counting, or
  • 100% counting of VVPAT slips in addition to electronic counting.
  • voters' have fundamental right to know that their vote has been correctly registered.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The court observed that there is a stringent system of checks and balances in place with EVMs and VVPATs to prevent any possibility of miscount of votes and allow voters to know that their vote has been counted as recorded. This system is more satisfactory compared to the earlier paper ballot system.
• The court stated that writ petitions should not be entertained if they are based on mere suspicion that a right could be infringed. There must be credible evidence of a real threat to a right for a writ petition to be maintainable.
• The Doctrine of Res judicata applies to writ petitions as well. Unless substantial new grounds not previously raised are presented, the court can dismiss a petition at the threshold if the issue has been conclusively decided earlier.
• On the specific issue of doubting the efficacy of EVMs, the court observed that this has been raised before and needs to be definitively concluded now. Regressive measures like reverting to paper ballots cannot be adopted unless substantial evidence is presented against EVMs.
• The court emphasized the need to maintain a balanced perspective, avoid blindly distrusting any part of the system, and adopt a critical yet constructive approach guided by evidence and reason to allow for meaningful improvements while ensuring the system's credibility.
• The court expressed hope and trust that the existing system will not fail the electorate, and the mandate of voters will be truly reflected in the votes cast and counted through the robust democratic process.

What is the Law Related to Electronic Voting Machines?

• History of EVM:
  • The idea of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) was first conceived in 1977 and a prototype was developed in 1979 by Electronics Corporation of India Ltd (ECIL).
  • After political consensus, EVMs were used on a pilot basis in 1982 for an election in Kerala.
  • However, this usage was challenged in the case of A.C. Jose v. Sivan Pillai (1984) and the Supreme Court ruled that the Election Commission couldn't override laws and use EVMs without legal provisions.
• Legislative Amendment for EVM Usage:
  • Following the Supreme Court's 1984 judgment, the government amended the Representation of the People Act in 1989 by inserting Section 61A to provide legal sanction for using EVMs.
  • The constitutional validity of this amendment was upheld by the Supreme Court in All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam v. Chief Election Commissioner (2001).
• Legal Provisions for EVMs and VVPATs:
  • Several provisions were added to the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 related to usage of EVMs like fresh polls due to EVM failure, offences like booth capturing involving EVMs, rules for EVM design, voting and counting procedures etc.
  • Amendments were also made in 2013 to introduce VVPAT.
• Nationwide Adoption of EVMs:
  • After the 1989 legal amendments, EVMs were gradually used more widely across India over successive elections - in some constituencies in 1998-99, specific state elections from 2000 onwards, and finally all constituencies for the 2004 Lok Sabha elections when EVMs completely replaced ballot papers nationwide.
• Technological Evolution of EVMs:
  • The EVMs have undergone technological upgrades over time - the pre-2006 era had M1 EVMs, M2 models were produced from 2006-2010, and the latest M3 version has been in use since 2013.

What were the Landmark Judgments Cited in the Case?

• Subramanian Swamy v. Election Commission of India (2013):
  • The Supreme Court held that a "paper trail" (VVPAT) is an indispensable requirement for free and fair elections to ensure accuracy and restore voter confidence in EVMs.
  • The ECI was permitted to introduce VVPATs in a gradual/phased manner across India due to the logistical challenges of handling 1 million polling booths.
• N. Chandrababu Naidu and Others v. Union of India and Another (2019):
  • Instead of VVPAT verification of 1 EVM per constituency as per guidelines, the Supreme Court directed that 5 EVMs per constituency should be subjected to VVPAT verification.
  • This was to generate greater satisfaction and ensure full accuracy of election results.